axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Chathura Herath" <chath...@opensource.lk>
Subject RE: [Axis2] WSDLServiceEmitter
Date Tue, 14 Dec 2004 03:17:07 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Srinath Perera [mailto:hemapani@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 1:02 PM
> To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Axis2] WSDLServiceEmitter
> 
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:13:21 +0600, Chathura Herath
> <chathura@opensource.lk> wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 14:52:36 -0500, Glen Daniels wrote
> >
> >
> > > Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> > > > Damn, I feel bad for Glen and Dims .. they have a lot of email
> > > > waiting for them when they wake up :-).
> > >
> > > !!!! No kidding. Took me a couple days to get to it. :)
> > >
> > > >>There is nothing wrong in creating a new document structure because
> the
> > > >>performance and memory is not an issue in this case, because this
> will be
> > > >>done offline, not at runtime.
> > >
> > > I don't agree with this.  What about the case where we dynamically
> > > generate WSDL from deployed Java services?  That's a runtime issue.
> > > Plus, various deployed Handlers/Modules might need to affect the
> > > WSDL generation as well, which also pulls this into the runtime realm.
> >
> > Think you got a point.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Well you should be able to go from WOM to WSDL 2.0 without any
> > > > problem (or the WSDL WG has screwed up!). However, I do understand
> > > > that its convenient to have a tree model to generate it rather
> > > > than having to do a one-pass stream out to a StAX push writer.
> > >
> > > Why?  As I see it you've already GOT the model (the WOM itself), so
> > > why not just have the emitter write that directly via the push API?
> > > I don't understand why that should be difficult, since you already
> > > know in what order all the dependencies have to be written, etc....
> > >
> >
> > Direct serialisation of WOm looks fine to me when considering the issues
> > raised. My only concern is that we should keep the Serialization not
> burnt
> > into WOM itself. Reason why i say that is there should be room for
> different
> > serializations, which i belive is something that has been upheld by the
> > concept of Component model in WSDL 2.0.
> Once you push it,.you can use differant ContentHandlers (SAX
> terminology) to write it in any way you need !

+1

Chathura




Mime
View raw message